SMU's statement on Coach Tubbs

[PK]

I have been reading these post all day and like everyone else here I have no real knowledge of what is going on, but I do have some thoughts on all of this.

1. Theory No. 1...Orsini wants his own man in here and Copeland does his dirty work for him. Come on...Copeland has been forced out himself. Why would he do someone elses dirty work and why would they want it done just before recruits are suppose to be signing letters of intent. If Orsini wanted Tubbs gone, it could have been his first order of business and it would have been after recruiting was completed. NOT A LOGICAL THEORY.

2. Tubbs is being treated unfairly. Maybe...maybe not. Perhaps because of his love for SMU he tried too hard and made some big mistakes relative to NCAA rules. Maybe because of the nature of the violations he had to go, but maybe...just maybe SMU was trying to be fair to him and bought him out. Not an impossibility, but then none of us know for sure.

3. Why doesn't SMU make public the violations so they don't look stupid? Maybe there are other people involved that are still under investigation and as in many legal situations you cannot make it public until the investigation is complete. Pure speculation on my part...but what the hell, speculation is about all I have read on this board today.

4. DISD coaches are just blowing smoke IMO. They have a lot more influence over their players than they are letting on. If they really wanted to help Tubbs, they would have convinced their kids that Tubbs was the best college coach ever and that they would learn and improve their game immensely playing for him regardless of the facilities. They got their friend Tubbs the job he wanted and that was about as far as they were going to go.

Anyway, that's my two cents worth.

I'm rather ambivelent on all of this. I thought he was a good guy and I wanted him to succeed as much for himself as for SMU, but I was underwelmed with his results to this point. I thought the assistant coaches who took over after Dement was fired did as good a job during the end of that season if not better than Tubbs has done since.

[DickerJames]

Izzat so?
You want to test that theory? Knock yourself out, big boy.

And while you deign to compare the line that separates major and minor infractions in your vocation/profession vs. SMU NCAA compliance, please inform us of where that is vis-a-vis a university athletic program which is a repeat offender under those regs, minor or otherwise. If your were likewise in your job, especially if you are a banker as I am, not only would you have been canned, you'd have spent some time with the OTS or OCC explaining to them your whole "major vs. minor" theory. If you want to feel molested, spend an afternoon with those fellows; you won't equivocate about "major & minor" anymore.

First of all, don't call me big boy, I don't swing like that, and second, I thought you went by OC not JC. It is soooo refreshing to know there is a banker in Dallas that has never made a minor mistake.

[SoCal_Pony]

His tenure at a scandal-laden OU program certainly looks more prejorative and not in his favor than before, regardless of whether he was involved or not.....

2 points -

1) Apparently The University of Indiana disagrees with you
2) I would hate to have you as a jury member at my trial

This is simple common sense. Don't break the rules. Don't even allow the appearance of breaking the rules...EVER. What part of "Hey, it's the rules, Stupid?" DON'T BREAK THE RULES. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM, WORK TO CHANGE THEM. BUT DON'T BREAK THE RULES.

STUPID, STUPID, STUPID....

2 points -

1) I have it from good sources that JTubbs was indeed working with the NCAA rules committee about allowing transferable detergents, sticking point apparently dealt with bleaches.
2) I would hate to have you as a jury member at my trial

[SoCal_Pony]

2. Tubbs is being treated unfairly. Maybe...maybe not. Perhaps because of his love for SMU he tried too hard and made some big mistakes relative to NCAA rules. Maybe because of the nature of the violations he had to go, but maybe...just maybe SMU was trying to be fair to him and bought him out. Not an impossibility, but then none of us know for sure.

3. Why doesn't SMU make public the violations so they don't look stupid? Maybe there are other people involved that are still under investigation and as in many legal situations you cannot make it public until the investigation is complete. Pure speculation on my part...but what the hell, speculation is about all I have read on this board today.

PK, I will combine 2 and 3. I think JT is being treated unfairly. If they are so gung ho to fire him, they owe everyone involved a better explanation than what they have provided so far.

[EastStang]

The troubling factors to me are (1) the timing right before signing day; (2) full payoff; (3) the Williams sting operation (set up), and what is the NCAA going to do to us for whatever violations they have uncovered. If he committed major violations, why the full payoff (is that our payment to keep the DISD coaches happy)? Williams clearly started the ball rolling with his burgergate stuff and in doing so committed an NCAA violation which should cause his banning as well. I wish Tubbs well and Williams well in their future endeavors and hope that they completely dissassociate themselves from Southern Methodist University.

[friarwolf]

Why was Tubbs paid for the remaining two years of his contract? Simple. It shuts him up, avoids ugly, costly, court battles, and gets everyone on down the road. Any of you guys who are in the business world or are attorneys knows how this works. In these situations, everyone gets mud on them regardless.

If SMU had used the hammer it had and told JT you are fired for cause - no money - tough - he and his attorney would be shouting to the rooftops about how he was screwed, SMU was rascist, SMU was covering even worse stuff up, SMU's football program is dirty, too, Copeland wears a sheet, Turner doesn't like Methodists, blah, blah, blah. With the payoff, Tubbs and his attorney both decline comment, Copeland hides in his office, and a week from now, everyone is talking about what Jerry and the Cowboys are up to. That's life in the business world.

[EastStang]

Yeah, but by paying him off, it looks like we're condoning his NCAA hijinx whatever they are, or that we just fired him after 2 years because he didn't have a winning team in two years. We'll be lucky to hire a 2nd chair assistant from a division 2 school now.

[DickerJames]

If SMU had used the hammer it had and told JT you are fired for cause - no money - tough - he and his attorney would be shouting to the rooftops about how he was screwed, SMU was rascist, SMU was covering even worse stuff up, SMU's football program is dirty, too, Copeland wears a sheet, Turner doesn't like Methodists, blah, blah, blah.

And if his allegations proved to be untrue then he would be the idiot instead of SMU.

As for SMU being worried about a costly lawsuit, if they had the goods on him the $600,000 they just paid him would have handled any lawsuit Mr. Tubbs could throw their way.

[jtstang]

As for SMU being worried about a costly lawsuit, if they had the goods on him the $600,000 they just paid him would have handled any lawsuit Mr. Tubbs could throw their way.

Absolutely true. All the businessmen and lawyers out there know the best thing always involves the most efficient use of capital. The typical wrongful termination lawsuit does not cost $600k to litigate.

[friarwolf]

DJ,

You get a pass if you are young. If you are over 30, you need to experience the real world. This is a no win situation. You mitigate the damages best you can and move on. Taking this thing to trial either through the media, a court room, or both damages SMU much more so than Tubbs.

[friarwolf]

And JT, as Steiber taught me in economics, there are a lot more costs associated with type of thing than just money. True, it might not cost 600k to litigate but do you want to hazard a guess on the costs associated with the publicity a trial like this would generate????????

[Stallion]

SMU bought out Bobby Collins for silence, A&M bought out Jackie Sherrill for silence. that's the way things are done in athletics. The few schools that have not done so have generally got their asses sued and several have lost multi-million dollar judgments when Courts have ruled that there was no material breach of contract-an issue in this case. Does the name Mike Price ring a bell.

[jtstang]

And JT, as Steiber taught me in economics, there are a lot more costs associated with type of thing than just money. True, it might not cost 600k to litigate but do you want to hazard a guess on the costs associated with the publicity a trial like this would generate????????

Is it more than the publicity we are getting because of firing a guy over burgers and detergent? We are a laughing stock. If there is more to it than this, a lawsuit would give SMU an excuse to tell the truth in a forum wherre it appears they were compelled to do so even if they did not want to.

[DickerJames]

DJ,

You get a pass if you are young. If you are over 30, you need to experience the real world. This is a no win situation. You mitigate the damages best you can and move on. Taking this thing to trial either through the media, a court room, or both damages SMU much more so than Tubbs.

Unfortunatly I am well over 30 and have experienced more "real world" than I would have prefered including a lawsuit.

I think you are missing the point. If SMU has the goods on Tubbs then Tubbs doesn't even have a lawsuit.

[SMU Football Blog]

Why would SMU air all its dirty laundry? There are things more important than PR. An NCAA violation by Tubbs is still a violation by SMU, even though SMU fired the guy. He was still the coach of SMU at the time.